i'm chris wallace. now house republicans will have a select committee investigate benghazi. after newly released e-mails raised more questions about the white house response. >> this document was not about benghazi. >> it was repressed for this sunday. >> the american people, to their credit, want to know the truth. this e-mail is proof positive they were manipulated. >> we'll talk with kelly ayod, one of the senators leading the charge for answers and adam shift, a member of the house intelligence committee. then anemic first quarter economic growth but good jobs

numbers reignite the debate over the state of our economy. we'll sit down with fedex ceo fred smith and the former head of ubs bank robert wolf. plus, president obama seeks a united front on ukraine. >> ukrainian government in kiev has followed through on the commitment that it made in geneva. we need russians to do the same. >> our sunday panel weighs in on growing questions about the president's foreign policy. and our power player of the week, brian stokes mitchell who's been called broadway's last leading man. ♪ dream the impossible dream all right now on "fox news sunda sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. the scandal over how president obama handled the benghazi terror attack that killed four americans got new traction this week. under court order, the administration had to release an

e-mail from a top presidential adviser that indicates the white house helped shape susan rice's talking points when she appeared here and on other sunday talk shows five days after the attack. in those interviews, rice blamed reaction to a video and ruled out a preplanned act of terror. joining us now from new hampshire is senator kelly ayod and here in studio, california congressman adam shift. house speaker boehner announced he'll call for creation of a select committee to investigate benghazi. senator ayod, a year and a half after the attack, is it too late? >> i don't think it's too late. i called for creation of a select committee after this attack. i'm glad that the speaker has done that. the investigation today, there's been important work done in the committee. the latest revelation from the white house really tells us that we need this select committee. why is it that we're just

receiving this e-mail? it really shows where the idea from the video came. because that video was not in the talking points and yet that is what ambassador rice pushed on your show and every sunday show. >> congressman shift, you have said that the benghazi and you put it conspiracy theories are a terrible distraction from the real issue which is bringing the people who killed these four americans to justice. is this house committee part of that distraction? and how certain are you that democrats will participate and put since it's a select bipartisan committee, will put members on the committee? >> chris, i think it's a colossal waste of time. we've had four bipartisan investigations of this already. and i think it's driven by a couple things. the republican conference is so fractured, there's only two things they agree on, they don't like obamacare and we've had 50 votes on that and they do like talking about benghazi. we've had four investigations on that. i don't think it makes sense really for democrats to participate. i think it's just a tremendous

red herring and a waste of taxpayer resources. i hope the speaker will reconsider. it looks like he has bowed again to those from the fartherest rite. >> whether you say you don't think it makes sense for democrats to participate, you're saying you think that the democrats did not appoint anybody to the special committee and let it be republicans holding this investigation? >> that's what i recommend. i don't know whether leadership will ultimately decide. i don't think it makes sense for us to give this select committee any more credibility than it deserves. frankly, i don't think it deserves very much. we tread down this path so many times. in terms of this roads memo, if you look at this four page memo, there's only two sentence that's pertain to benghazi which track exactly what the c.i.a.'s talking points were. so it's very hard to use this memo as some kind of a justification. >> let me pick up on that. for months, literally moekz, jay carney flatly denied the white house had anything to do with the susan -- the talking points

of susan rice used when she came here and other sunday shows and blame the attack on a protest of anti- -- the anti-islam video that spun out of control. let's take a look at those denials. >> it's been repeatedly said by some of the critics on this issue on the hill that the white house provided talking points. that has been categorically refuted. the only edits made by anyone here at the white house are stylistic and nonsubstantive. they corrected the description of the building or the facility in benghazi from conflict to diplomatic facility. and the like. >> but then this week under a court order, the administration had to release this memo from white house adviser ben roedz under the list goals for rice, he wrote, to underscore these protests are rooted in an internet video and not a broader failure policy, he may be right.

they didn't edit the cia talking points. but ben rohdes and others wrote their own talking points. >> they wrote about their talking points p it's important to remember what ambassador rice was preparing for on your show and others when she sat on the seat that i'm sitting in right now, benghazi was not the first question you asked or second or third, it was the 14th question you asked. it's not a criticism. but it's reflection fact that focus of your show like many others was the protests going on. >> you're exactly right. sir, i have the rohdes memo right here. and in it he says one of the goals that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm americans to justice. the only people who had been harmed, americans, who had been harmed at that point were the four americans that had been killed in benghazi. on another page, he specifically refers to a report in a british newspaper about benghazi. so to say this memo wasn't about benghazi is just not true, sir.

>> it's true that two sentences of the four page memo are about benghazi. but those two sentences are exactly what the cia talking points said. and that's exactly what susan rice. >> no, because the cia had never talked about the video. >> well, what the sea cia said that the protests were based on protests in cairo which is what the ambassador said. those protests in cairo were inspired by the video. and that's exactly what the ambassador said. that's exactly what the intelligence committee community believed at the tile. that's what general petraeus briefed us on. that's what was thought at that time. so you can take issue with what the intelligence community did. there is nothing that contradicts that in the rhodes memo. >> jay carney says the same thing you heard from adam schiff senator ayotte which is this memo which does mention benghazi and talks about americans being harmed is not about benghazi. take a look.

>> i can say again and again, and i know you can keep asking again and again, this document was not about benghazi. >> senator ayotte, do you buy that? >> chris, it does pass the laugh test. here's the problem, the cia testified before the house intelligence committee that, in fact, they did not put a connection between the attack and the video and, in fact, when that was said, that's not in a talking points anyway. the video story clearly came from the white house and why did it make a difference six weeks before an election pushing a story about a spontaneous reaction to a video which is what ambassador rice said on your show and other shows as a result of the attacks as opposed to a coordinated terrorist attack is a very different narrative when trying to push this is not a failure of broader failure of foreign policy. there really isn't an explanation of why she connected the video, why the president and others connected to the video even as late as september 20th.

so that is inexplicable. i would ask congressman schiff, why did she connect it to the video? also, she came on your show, chris, and she also said that the conflict security was strong and significant. where was the evidence of that? we know that leading up to these attacks that there were whole course of history that shows there is an effect on that conflict. yet she went on your show and said that the security was strong. look at those talking points and what it says about that. >> senator, i want to get to a different point. that is the fact that while the administration this first week kept saying this was not a preplanned terror attack, in fact, the people on the ground in libya and with direct responsibility kept saying it was the cia station chief in libya said it was a terror attack and now we found out this week so did the deputy intelligence director for u.s. forces in africa. here was his testimony.

>> what we did know early on is this was a hostile action. this was no demonstration going terribly awry. >> senator ayotte, why do you think it is that the cia, the state department and the white house ignored their people and the ground when they said this was not a terror attack? >> because the white house is pushing a political explanation leading up to an election. the president had been saying al qaeda was on the run. this did not fit their narrative. this is a broader failure of foreign policy. and, in fact, we know also that secretary panetta also said the same thing. they knew right away it was a terrorist attack. yet that, was not pushed by the administration. they were trying to push this video that it was some kind of spontaneous reaction that was out of their control. that's significant. this should matter. >> we're running out of time,

senator ayotte. i want to give congressman schiff a chance to answer. the politics of this, one argument is what the white house was doing is trying to protect obama's re-election effort. another question, which i know some democrats have raised, is that this now is an effort to hurt hillary clinton before she runs for president, if she does, in 2016. >> i think that is clearly the case. let me address what the cia station chief said. we heard in the testimony that the station chief of the cia thought this didn't begin as a protest for a couple reasons which the analysts didn't agree with. first was that he cited press reports that said there was no protest but there were press reports that said there was a protest. he also said that heintelligenc. and this is an important point that gets lost when everyone cites the station chief in tripoli. the station chief said that one of the possible motivations he

had to concede was the video. now no one wants to mention that. that was also the belief of the station chief. so i think what the deputy director said was that there was no interference by the white house. it was their best assessment that it was the protest. >> i hate to rush you along. i want to ask you about ukraine. it's very important. this week president obama and german chancellor merkel said they would impose tough sanctions on the russian economy not only if russia invades ukraine but also if russia disrupts the may 25th presidential election. senator ayotte, you've introduced legislation to impose those sanctions not later but right now. >> they need to be imposed now, chris. the bottom line is if we wait until the elections, it will be too late at that point. we already see the playbook of what happened in crimea

happening in eastern ukraine. and it's time to impose tougher sectoral sanctions, provide support for the ukrainian military. and at this point russia is not get is the message. they're violating the geneva agreement. you got russian agents in ukraine causing all the violence and really creating a situation right now that warrants tougher sanctions by this administration. >> congressman shift, have the obama sanctions up to this point been too weak? >> look, i think we're going to ultimately need stronger sanctions. the challenge is not getting administration to go along with stronger sanctions. the challenge is getting our european allies to do exactly that. it's going to affect our economy much more than ours. and any sectoral sanctions that we administer without the europeans that they back fill aren'tto be effective. i want to see them done in concert with our allies.

i think they're going to be necessary. we've got to inflict a heavy penalty on russia for this kind of violation of the neighbor sovereignty. >> congressman schiff, senator ayotte, thank you. >> is creation of a house select committee a good idea? our sunday group will join that conversation. plus, what would you like to ask the panel about benghazi? just go to facebook or twitter and we may use your questions on the air.

the e-mail and the talking points were not about benghazi. they were about the general situation in the muslim world where you saw, as you may recall, protests -- >> to prepare susan rice. >> correct. they misstated it. in fact, this was certainly not about benghazi. >> well, things got a bit testy this week when the white house press corps challenged jay carney's claim that ben rhodes memo was not about benghazi. our sunday group, brit hume, elise viebeck, george hill, syndicated columnist and jane

harman. we asked you for questions for the panel. we got this one on facebook who asks, why have republicans handled the investigation so badly? why wasn't a special committee appointed over a year ago? brit, how do you answer jeff and more than a year and a half after this attack is appointing a select committee now a good idea? >> i think it's probably worth a try even though it's late in the game. it's not clear that there will be any buy in by the democrats and bipartisanship is a characteristic of these effective select committees. so we'll see. as for why it's gone so badly, it's because it was scattered over several committees. there is ineptitude. there are poor decisions taken, for example, the decision to have the committees of jurisdiction do this is the principal one. but the investigations have not been terribly effective and have left us with this continuing

mystery to this day. where did susan rice get the idea to go on the sunday shows and blame the whole thing on a video? we certainly believe now that it didn't come from the cia. jay carney says it didn't come from the white house. apatie apparently has no responsibility for anything. we think we may have gotten a hint of it from this e-mail. but it's still not clear. there are still things to investigate. >> for months i think it's fair to say that the speaker of the house resisted calls for a special committee. he just wouldn't -- didn't want to do this for a variety of reasons. it might look too political. it might seem to promise more than the committee could absolutely -- actually deliver. and i think there was also a concern that the committee would be seen as investigating benghazi instead of talking about jobs and education and health care and things that directly affect people's lives. what changed? >> i think that this reflects actually of frustration on speaker boehner's part with how the investigation has been handled by the deputies.

i think that he has been the one in charge in doing the most work on the benghazi investigation. i believe that by now establishing a select committee, bane kerr exercise more control over the process and be able to move forward with what republicans see as this revelation in the rhodes e-mail. >> what do you make, maybe you've done reporting on this, i think it was very interesting that adam shiam schiff said dem may not participate in this. >> that's right. well, there are politics on all sides of this. i think democrats see an opportunity here to make the committee look as political as they believe it is inherently by not participating, that makes republicans look bad and so democrats may in fact do that. we'll find out this week. >> the big development this week was the forced release of this ben rhodes e-mail that seems to contradict white house claims they had absolutely nothing to do with susan rice coming on fox news sunday and the other shows and talking about a video.

it's been called the smoking gun. our colleague compared it to the discovery of the nixon tapes during watergate. george, how significant is it? >> rather less than the watergate tapes which showed a president at the heart of the crime wave. this is a memo pushing a narrative that we now know to be false. he should have known to be false at the time. that he probably did know was false and therefore the memo is false. that all said, that is only one of the subjects this committee, if there is to be a committee should be investigating. first is why were we deeply embroiled in livia's civil war in the first place? second, was there adequate security in benghazi? obviously not. third, should the military been able to respond when the attack is under way? that's an argument within the military that they poured care seen on. >> we should point out, he was

the deputy intelligence chief who said we thought should have responded. >> which now comes to the video which is not the most important of those topics and the committee. we certainly made news this morning with talking to mr. schiff. i do not know why at all any democrat would want to participate in this. but boycotting it, it just becomes a redundant and obvio obviously partisan republican exercise. it is only a matter of time before democrats raise the following question, would there be a select committee if it didn't want to have the power to subpoena the former secretary of state hillary clinton for obviously reasons pertaining to presidential politics? >> congresswoman harman? >> chris, a little additional fact which is i believe a couple days ago darrell isa subpoenaed john kerry who during the benghazi time was a member of the united states senate. they subpoenaed him to appear and testify on may 21st when he is scheduled to be in mexico

doing some serious work. >> wait. wait. but, excuse me, the reason they asked him to testify is because of the fact that last august the isa committee subpoenaed the state department to come up with all the benghazi documents and they didn't come up with the ben rhodes document. can you argue whether or not he should be subpoenaed. >> i'm argued he shouldn't be subpoenaed. i'm not sure if this leads to hillary clinton. >> since you brought it up, can you explain why it was that when the house committee subpoenas all of the benghazi document that's they didn't turn over the rhodes memo. but when a court judge orders them to do it, they turn over the ben rhodes document? >> no, i can't explain it. >> is it a problem? >> i think it's posed a political opportunity right at the moment. let me make a couple comments on benghazi. i know something about this. and the day after the susan rice appearances, the day after the

event, i was meeting with some senior intelligence committee folks. i still advise in some capacities on boards to some of our agencies. i think there was legitimate confusion. i agree about the point that the video was in egypt and nobody really knew what the facts were. i'm reading from the ben rhodes memo which i've never seen before and it said we're not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the u.s. mission in benghazi was planned or imminent. and i think that was accurate. so -- >> we didn't have actionable intelligence about 9/11. that doesn't mean it didn't happen. >> by the way, this was an intill jens failure. it wasn't a conspiracy. and there aren't aliens in area 51 and vince foster wasn't murdered. and it's time to move on and focus on the real roproblems. >> there wasn't a conspiracy in the united states for the benghazi attack. that's not the question. the question was whether in the

aftermath of the attack when the administration sent the u.n. ambassador out to explain it to everybody and she did so falsely that there wasn't a conspiracy to create the false talking points that she used. i'm not talking about the cia talking points. i'm talking about the talking points used on that program that day which were monumentally misleading and were, and have since been shown to be false and based on no intelligence of any consequence that we know of. >> all right. and my answer to that is no, there wasn't a conspiracy. they didn't turn out to be accurate. >> well how did it happen? >> i think that people made at the time their best guess at the facts. >> but where did the idea that the video had anything to do with benghazi come from? >> where did it come from? >> yes? >> i think it came from people who weren't sure about it. >> can you identify anybody? can you identify any cia information? can you identify any source? >> the video or the movie five times in this memo. only five times.

>> my view is having been around this that this was not deliberately misleading. it turndz oed out to be wrong. >> on that, we'll take a break. we'll see you all a little later. we're not going to solve this now. for more on the latest devel developments, white house cover-up revealed tonight on the fox news channel. don't miss it. and what do you think about the benghazi scandal? join the investigation on facebook with other fns viewers. when we come back, mixed news this week about the economy. we'll sit down with two top ceos to discuss the fate of the republic. there's a saying around here, you stand behind what you say. around here you don't make excuses. you make commitments. and when you can't live up to them, you own up, and make it right. some people think the kind of accountability

that thrives on so many streets in this country has gone missing in the places where it's needed most. but i know you'll still find it when you know where to look.

[doorbell rings] hey. hey. what's this? it's u-verse live tv. with at&t u-verse... you can watch live tv from your device. hey. hey. anywhere in your home. [doorbell rings] hey. hey. so you won't miss a minute of the game. call now to get a u-verse bundle for the same great price for 2 years. guaranteed.

we got a lot of numbers about the economy this week but not a clear picture of where we stabbed we brought in tw-- stan. we brought in two executives, fred smith and robert wolf. so gentlemen, let's run through the numbers that we got this week. the economy create ed 2 will 8 0 th -- 288,000 jobs. but the unemployment rate dropped by 3%. the workforce dropped to a three decade low of 62.8% participation in the labor

force. and in the first three months of this year, gdp growth was almost nonexistent, just .1%. mr. smith, with all of that, where is the economy? >> well, i think the economy is getting better based on what we're seeing. the jobs number last friday was good at 288,000 people. added to the payrolls. but as you said, a lot of people withdrew from the labor market. our internal forecast is about 2.5% gdp this year, rising to about 3.5% in calendar year '15. >> mr. wolf, your view? why what is the state of our economy right now? >> well, i would say i would agree. i think it's getting better. i think you have to discount gdp significantly. the weather was the worst in 60 years other than 1976 and 1978.

288,000 was a very good number as well as the revision. and it's 50 straight months of private sector job gains. i would say the trend is getting better. certainly nervous about the participation rate. >> but you know, gentlemen, this isn't just one month or one quarter. i know people have talked about the bad winter. i'm wondering whether we need to worry about global cooling now. but let's look at the record. average growth over the 19 quarters of this recovery of the obama recovery is 2.2% per quarter. with total growth over the 19 quarters of 11.1%. the average for all recovery since 1960 is 4.1% per quarter with total growth of 21.1%. basically about double what we're seeing in this recovery. question, mr. wolf, why is this recovery so weak? >> well, i would say differently. normally close to recovery, post recession the recovery is 50% gains coming from housing or

construction. which that took the first two years to really get through the slack and now you see housing recovery starting to come around. so i would say it's not a normal recovery. but i actually think 2%, 2.5% is where we've been chugging along. obviously, gdp last year we came as high as 3.4%. most economists think it's going to be up 2.5%. i think we're going to need housing back. we're going to need manufacturing back. and the truth is we're in a bit of a technical revolution here. so i do think that it's taking productivity gains which actually impacts, you know, obviously employment as well. >> mr. smith, i want to ask you also for your perspective. during the reagan recovery in 1983 and '84, growth per quarter was 4.9% as compared to 2.2% in the obama recovery. >> well, i think there are a couple things that you got to pay attention to in the reagan

years. the amount of united states gdp that was related to international trade was much smaller than it is today. it's about 30% today. u.s. corporations have invested a lot overseas because the returns are higher. and our tax code in the united states does not reward investment and capital equipment and software is what creates jobs. if you plot job creation and capital investment public and private infrastructure, they look like railroad tracks. it's 94% correlation. we're not spending on infrastructure. we're down to the lowest level since 1947 in that regard. so primarily it's the lack of investment. certainly that includes residential recently. you've seen very bad balance of payments, deficits to buy oil

and with china and japan for many years. some of those are now turning around a bit. >> let me -- >> chris? >> let me just interrupt here. i want to get to this question of policy and what's the best way to boost growth going forward. this week the senate republicans filibustereded and blocked an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 an hour now to $10.10 by the year 2016. president obama says this is one more case of republicans refusing to look out for the middle class. take a look. >> they said no to raising the minimum wage. no to equal pay for equal work. and no to restoring the unemployment insurance they let expire for more than two million americans looking for a new job. >> mr. smith, are those measures as well as what the president calls investment and other people call spending and higher taxes on the wealthy, are those the right ways to get this economy going and to boost

growth and boost jobs? >> in my opinion, chris, the most important thing that the obama administration has done since the financial crisis was to put in place so-called bonus depreciati depreciati depreciation. that's the ability to write off capital investment when you make it rather than wait many years to get your money back. the kennedy administration put in an investment tax credit. i think part of the problem is we talk about everything as an investment when it's really education and whether it comes to people and so forth. it's investment and capital equipment and software and in a infrastructure that drives the jobs in the united states. >> what about the minimum wage? is that good or bad for the economy? >> well, you know, the reason the republicans, i think, voted against it was because the cbo

said it would cost 500,000 jobs. there are other studies that said it's not so meaningful. what it will do is it will reduce employment of lower skilled people on the go forward basis. >> mr. wolf, i'm going to reference that with the nonpartisan congressional office. i had said if you increase the minimum wage to $10.10 it would move 900,000 people above the poverty line. but it also said that it would cost 500,000 jobs. let me ask you the same question. raising the minimum wage, xe extending unemployment benefits, higher taxes on the wealthy, are those the right or wrong ways to get this economy going faster? >> let me answer both. let me answer on the growth side first. one, he's for free trade with europe and asia. he is for corporate tax reform. those are all positive things.

with respect to minimum wage, yes, i saw the cbo report. it also said that minimum wage would increase demand in this country which would obviously help our gdp. i think the other aspect of the cbo report if you're positive in using the cbo report on the unemployment, it also said that the affordable care act helps employment because it helps mobility. so, you know, there's a lot of different checks going around. it certainly the one thing about minimum wage is it may impact up to 25 million people in a positive way. 15 million direct, 10 million indirect. those are all good things for this country. >> mr. smith, since mr. wolf brought up obamacare, i want to ask you about this as well. on the health care side or, you know, legitimate social policy side but as a matter of the economy, is obamacare a drag on the economy or a boost to the economy? >> well, i think the obamacare effect on the economy over a

period of time will be largely neutral. what it's caused people like small business people and for that matter fedex to do for 100,000 of our employees and their families is to change the structure of our health care so there's much more patient involvement, higher deductibles and higher co-pays. and so that will offset to some degree the increased transfers to the people that did not have health care. i think overall it will be relatively neutral in the short term longer term maybe more problematic. >> mr. smith, mr. wolf, we have to leave it there. thank you so much for joining us today. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> up next, president obama threatens more sanctions against russia and defends his foreign policy. our sunday group will take up that conversation.

russian leadership must know that if they continue to destabilize eastern ukraine and disrupt this month's presidential election, we'll move quickly on additional steps including further sanctions that will impose greater cost. >> president obama after a meeting with german chancellor merkel promising tougher economic sanctions if russia does not change course in the ukraine. we're back now with the panel. the violence, i think it's fair to say is increasing in easternure crane with dozens killed in the last couple days and ukrainian forces try to oust pro russian separatist who seized government buildings and russian president putin calling that a criminal act. it seems we're headed bit by bit towards a showdown. >> it does. it does not appear the sanctions imposed so far have deterred putin in any meaningful way which raises the question of,

okay, what additional sanctions will likely be imposed and how soon? what would trigger them? if you're talking about sectoral stangss that would hit the russian economy as a whole, much harder than anything done so far, it's not clear that he has key players in europe onboard with him to do that. and it's not clear whether he can get that to happen with only regarding ukraine. now, you know, the situation expands to other nations including nations like the baltics which are members of nato. that might change. but so far, not so good. >> meanwhile, "the wall street journal" had a poll this week that had some interesting numbers about all of this. it showed only 37% approve of president obama's hand willing of ukraine while 47% want the u.s. to be less active on the world stage. elise, at least the way i read the poll is people are saying we don't like getting pushed around by the russians but we don't

want to be any more engaged in the world stage. >> that's true. and polls show the public supports sanctions including tough sectoral sanctions but not sending weapons to the ukrainians which is what senators like john mccain called for. in this sense, the public is on obama's side. but what i feel is that they do not understand his approach and that's one of the reasons why they're having trouble getting behind it. >> during his trip to asia, president obama was asked about his foreign policy which some call cautious and incremental. he defended it viscerally. there was part of his defense. >> that may not always be popular or attract a lot of attention. it doesn't make for good argument on sunday morning shows. but it avoids errors. you hit singles, you hit doubles every once if a while. every once in a while we may be

able to hit a home run. >> it may be a good argument to have on a sunday morning talk show. it was not a reaganesque call to arms, was it? >> no. he's going to play small ball. get them on, get them out or get them in at best. but the point is you advance. the question is where is he advancing? egypt recently sent 529 people to death. 683 people to death for another. iran is headed for what is what is called a nuclear threshold state. that is a screwdriver turn away from having nuclear weapons. assad is gearing up to get elected to another seven year term. israeli-palestinian talks collapsed. china is rampant in the south china and east china sea and mr. putin, what we just saw was afrpg la america wi

angela merkel drew another red line. if you interfere with the presidential election there will be terrible consequences. we'll see if this red line fares better than the others have. >> let's do same tour of the horizon with you. when you look at iran and syria and ukraine and the breakdown it appears of the middle east peace talks, is this president sending a message of strength and u.s. resol snf. >> american leadership is independeni indispensable. we should lead in part to the world where our leadership is needed. i hear it all the time when i travel around. i think in the case of ukraine, it's good that we have had talked about sectoral sanctions. i think we ought to do them now. i think that would deter putin. >> what the administration has been doing up to this point are targeted sanctions against individuals or against individual banks or institutions. sectoral sanctions are sanctions

against the entire energy sector or the entire mining sector. so it's much broader. >> angela merkel was here friday. i was in a small meeting with her. she is trying to pull europe along. give a shout out to her. she is a great leader in europe. we need europe pulled along. focusing on certainly financial institutions, actually, a senior russian official said we ought to yank the visas so they can't go to the dachas in south of france and miami. that would really get their attention. so there are smart ways to do this. in addition to that though -- >> wait. you say you were in a meet will with angela merkel. does she support -- because the perception is that germany, which has a lot of trade with russia and particularly depends on energy on oil and gas would not support sanctions athe this point? >> she said she talked about how she is trying to move other countries in europe along. i think her country is -- at

least she is closer to this. she did stand in unity with president obama talking about this. there does have to be an off ramp for russia to deescalate this. i don't think we choose to get in a war with the russians. we have to bolster nato. that is something they talked about, too. we have to find a way to achieve a pluralist noncorrupt government in ukraine and we have to support trade, i think so. >> so what is the off ramp? >> well, putin personally, certainly the information everybody seems to have is that there is no advantage to russia in having an all out war in ukraine. our leverage is our economy against him. we're strong. he's a gas station as john mccain said with a lot of corrupt people surrounding him. if we are going to avoid the sanctions we can avoid a worse outcome. we have to bolster nato. we have some troops on the ground. europe has to be in that game as

much as we can. they can't outsource nato to the united states. >> george? >> we're at war now. the fact is two helicopters get shot down. putin says that ukraine's use of its own army to enforce order in its own territory is a criminal act? he clearly has decided that he's at war and he's going to win it. >> he's at war. >> yes. >> we're not at war. >> that's correct. >> right. >> cases where leaders embarked on adventures in other countries that turned out in the end rather badly. that may be the case here. it's not going to turn out badly any time soon is putin. you look at the polling numbers that she cited on -- or you mentioned about the use of infusion of arms and to the ukrainian forces, that's reviewed negatively by the public. it is viewed negatively by the president. if he took a different view of

this and made a case for it, i bet those poll numbers would turn around almost overnight and presidents who lead in situations like this end up as a rule with the public following them. you have to lead. you can't be talking about hitting small balls and singles and doubles and avoiding mistakes. that's not leadership. that is followership. and that is not working very well. >> elise, are you convinced the president can lead and change public opinion on getting -- and, again, we're not talking about u.s. troops. even in the most activist signal here, all we're talking about is sending something more than meals ready to eat. you know, military rations to the ukrainian soldiers. >> no, i'm not entirely sure the public opinion is with this. a study found that only one in six can find ukraine on a map. there is a lot they need to learn before they get behind any action. >> that's what presidents do. that's why presidential leadership is important. he has the biggest mega phone in the country if not the world.

>> if things keep going the way they're going, there may be no ukraine to find on the map. >> the president is leading. he just happens to be leading into a policy that in fact is that the country says they want. they may not want the consequences of it. but it wants the politics. >> thank you, panel. see all next week. they held the white house correspondence dinner last night where we get to pretend we're friends with stars from hollywood. as usual, president obama spoke, poking fun at himself as well as the media including one of his favorite targets. >> the coke brothers bought a table here tonight much as usual, they used the shadowy right-wing organization as a front. hello fox news. [ applause ] i'm just kidding. let's face the facts, you'll miss me when i'm gone. it will be harder to convince

the american people that hillary was born in kenya. [ applause ] >> always better to be mentioned at those dinners than not to be mentioned. up next, our "power player of the week." one of broadway's leading lights comes to washington. latte or au lait? sunny or bubbly? cozy or cool? "meow" or "woof"? wheels or wheeeels? everything exactly the way you want it ...until boom, it's bedtime.

your mattress isn't bliss: it's a battleground of thwarted desire. enter the all-new sleep number classic series. designed to let couples sleep together in individualized comfort. starting at just $699.99 for a queen mattress. he's the softy: his sleep number setting is 35. you're the rock: your setting is 60. that works. he's the night owl. his side's up while you're in dreamland. you're the early bird. up and at 'em. no problem, because you're in it together... keeping the love alive. and by the way - snoring? sleep number's even got an adjustment for that. crazy? only if sleeping peacefully with your soulmate is crazy. find your sleep number setting only at one of our 425 stores nationwide. you can afford a sleep number bed, you can't afford another mediocre night's sleep. know better sleep with sleep number.

the kennedy center holds the spring gala tonight to raise money for performances and education programs. they're doing a special concert of "camelot" and king arthur is our "power player of the week." ♪ >> i analyze the song very -- with great detail before i even start singing it. i analyze the lyrics. i analyze the rhyme scheme. ♪ this is my quest to follow that sun ♪ >> brian stokes mitchell has been called broadway's last leading man. and he gave us a master class on how he creates a magical moment. ♪ dream the impossible dream to fight the unbeatable foe ♪ >> he said the impossible dream had been sung in long flights of music. >> as i was reading the lyrics, i said there is a question and answer kind of in the song. and implied question to dream

what? the impossible dream. to fight what? the unbeatable foe. ♪ now i'm alone >> mitchell's big break on broadway came in 1998. ♪ when he originated the role of cole house walker in "rag time." >> you're going to win the tony award. the show is going to win the tony award. we could feel something wonderful with the show. and then "lion king" opened. ♪ so kiss me kate >> mitchell would win his tony two years later in "kiss me kate." then there was sweeney todd. all with a voice uniquely suited for musical theater. >> for one thing, i had to dig baritones down that is kind of out of fashion now in the recording world. >> but there's one way in which he differs from everyone else who's ever hear him. >> i hate listening to myself

sing. >> why on earth? >> it's because i only hear the mistakes. >> 15 years ago mitchell became close friends with ted kennedy who was a big fan of musicals. >> we were talking to each other on the phone that, is usually the first thing he would do. and we would go into this whole duet together. >> after kennedy's death, mitchell sang at his memorial service. ♪ one man scorned and covered with scars ♪ >> which made it even more fitting he would star at the annual gala for the kennedy center and create one more enchanted evening. ♪ >> the audience is the last character of the show that's introduced because they tell you what's funny, what's not.

♪ it becomes this huge conversation with all of these people that are involved and it turns into something greater than you ever hoped or ever dreamed. that's the joy and the excitement of doing it. ♪ [ applause ] >> wow. if you want to hear brian stokes mitchell, he has a cd out called "simply broadway." he'll be appearing in shakes spear in the park this summer in new york city. and that's it for today. have a great week. we'll see you next "fox news sunday." n af

and many actors have played the part of u.s. servicemen in the movies, but for veterans like james crosby their service and their sacrifice are real. and too often when they come home, their struggle continues. for over sixty years, paralyzed veterans of america has been fighting to help our injured veterans get the benefits they need, and have earned. paralyzed veterans of america was there for me when i came home.

join me in supporting our paralyzed veterans. visit p-v-a dot org. new this morning, san francisco police have won in custody after a standoff that forced people from their hotel rooms. details of the ordeal that kept that area shut down for hours. the warrior fans are waking up thinking what could have been after game seven comes down to the final minutes. the team that made it all the way to hawaii is back in california, but not back at their father's home in santa clara. i'll tell you about the man's attempt to reach their son. mornings on 2